The Name thing.

[Seosaidh]

I tried adding a qualifier to my DL last time I renewed it. They would not accept it and said I had to redo the signature card. Whatever. Just because I have a DL does not mean I am operating through it. Much like having a hunting or fishing license. I can't be ticketed for drinking a beer under the fishing license in my driveway. I may be driving down the road (held in trust by the gov) but I am not engaged in a commercial activity or performing the functions of a public office so what does it matter. I keep the DL (contract) valid because I might someday need it...but not today.

That's how I see it, but I intend to use the DL as identification for a new bank account.

[David Merrill]

First post here, but I am catching up fast, and I have lots of questions, mostly concerning the unseen consequences of becoming a suitor. First, if I create a fictitious entity which is my true name, should I then change other documents, such as driver's license? I don't see how it would help to change the title on my home, because I began the purchase process with private money (I found this site about two months too late). But in essence I would then become this new entity (or more specifically renounce the bonded entity the state set up to account for me as inventory). This new entity does not use private money, ever. Then I should set up a bank account which has instructions on the signing card that all deposits into the account are lawful money. Could I then spend this lawful money by writing checks on this public money account? How would I demonstrate that the funds being tendered were lawful money? I am thinking here of perhaps buying a car, and will need to demonstrate that the funds are lawful, public money, not private money.

Here is an example.

It is great to see your excitement.

I think your view of the true name as an artificial entity is delightful. It is refreshing anyway. New.

It is a sound with a specific spelling but I find whenever I plug it as an entity "Merrill" becomes my last name. So I do not think it really qualifies as an entity at all. It has no capacity except maybe to you. We suitors know each other by our true names - even so much that when discussing the full or legal name pertaining to ourselves we usually don't even use our family or surnames - like David Merrill XXXXX for example. Or David Merrill DOE. This is so that some folks will not coerce the legal entity out of us or even our conversations by forming the full or legal name.

Of course in the real world with legal boundaries anybody doing so without our consent or express construction criminal charges of criminal impersonation or identity theft. Maybe now you are starting to see where I am coming from. Accessing a certain account with a series of digits formed by you (SSN or bank account) without verifying your express consent is illegal too.

So the true name is more a learning tool while you realize the entity John Henry DOE (JOHN H. DOE) is a tool for you to use to your benefit John Henry. What you get out of wrapping your mind around that is control of whether you accept the position of trustee for IT or not. That is handled - a refusal to be trustee - by Refusal for Cause. If you are entrenched in a contract R4C may not work but just the same you get your R4C on the Record. Maybe it can pay off later. Knowing how is always good and so practicing now is better than trying to perfect process later.

A very graceful thing about R4C is how it (Naked) showed up above Name in Black's Fifth. I think a suitor or two thought I had spotted that from the time I took the photo, many years ago! I marvel that it was right in front of me all that time. If there was no consideration or even if the consideration was unclear (benefits of FDIC and fractional lending as a state bank) then your R4C should hold up if you can wrap your mind around it.

[EZrhythm]

I tried adding a qualifier to my DL last time I renewed it. They would not accept it and said I had to redo the signature card.

That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted!

Whatever. Just because I have a DL does not mean I am operating through it. Much like having a hunting or fishing license. I can't be ticketed for drinking a beer under the fishing license in my driveway. I may be driving down the road (held in trust by the gov) but I am not engaged in a commercial activity or performing the functions of a public office so what does it matter. I keep the DL (contract) valid because I might someday need it...but not today.

True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

[Seosaidh]

That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted! True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

For some reason, your post switched a light on for me, and now I have to rethink everything. :-)

[shikamaru]

That's why I use "Without Prejudice" by itself in cursive. Always accepted! True, doesn't mean one is operating through it but it is evidence of being the surety for it. ...As long as one knows how to deflect this position. Regarding "commercial activity"- The common theory behind this term is actually moot because of their system of fictions, one could still engage in commercial activity without being required to have a license since they can only bring an action against another fiction. Another point- The license IS commerce. If one allows the presumption that they are a "resident" then that by default puts them in "commercial activity" status, even if merely walking down the street. If stopped and then presenting the license one has just given evidence of the presumption of being a resident AND that they are "in commerce". By the way, these presumption are always rebuttable.

Also remember that a license is a servitude. This is something from Roman Civil Law.

A servitude is distinct from a contract. This is where attorners get all bent out of shape saying a license is not a contract without revealing the true nature of what a license is....

[Chex]

Abstract:
The assertion that a ?license? is simply a ?contract not to sue? has become a commonplace in both copyright and patent law.

I argue that this notion is conceptually flawed, and has become a straightjacket channeling juristic reasoning into unproductive channels. At root, a license is not a contract, but a form of property interest.

It may be closely intertwined with a set of contractual relationships, but its nature and consequences cannot be satisfactorily explained from within the world of contract doctrine alone.

In this article, I seek to explain the complementary but parallel roles played by property and contract doctrine in creation of the various forms of legal interests we refer to as ?licenses.?

Each doctrine has its own set of governing formalities that afford titleholders various means through which to create and protect use privileges granted to others, while still retaining residual title for themselves.

I argue that clarifying the extent to which licenses are exercises of powers conferred by property rather than contract law provides a key to proper application of Section 204 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which has been (erroneously) construed as a statute of frauds governing contract formation, as opposed to one governing a specific form of property conveyance. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2010853

And

Rather, a license is a permission granted by one party to another allowing use of a property without fear of lawsuit brought by the granting party. A license does not include a return promise (i.e., consideration) from the licensee. So, as we all learned in law school, a license cannot be a contract under law. This is not to say that a license cannot be an element of a contract under which two parties trade promises, one of such promises being a license. This is commonly known as a "license agreement." But a bald license, a one-way promise, is enforceable outside of contract law. It is something apart. It exists and is enforceable under property law doctrine. http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/2...-v-katzer.html

[shikamaru]

Try Black's Law Dictionary under license which you will note: see servitude.

Then grab a copy of Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 to get the historical rundown on this practice.

Other terms of interest will be munera and tenancy at will.

A license is a form and type of grant.

Interesting we run full circle and encounter estates again ....

[David Merrill]

Abstract:

Rather, a license is a permission granted by one party to another allowing use of a property without fear of lawsuit brought by the granting party. A license does not include a return promise (i.e., consideration) from the licensee. So, as we all learned in law school, a license cannot be a contract under law. This is not to say that a license cannot be an element of a contract under which two parties trade promises, one of such promises being a license. This is commonly known as a "license agreement." But a bald license, a one-way promise, is enforceable outside of contract law. It is something apart. It exists and is enforceable under property law doctrine. http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/2...-v-katzer.html

Thank you for that explanation!


I think you may be saying social contract?

[Chex]

Try Black's Law Dictionary under license which you will note: see servitude.

Then grab a copy of Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 to get the historical rundown on this practice.

Other terms of interest will be munera and tenancy at will.

A license is a form and type of grant.

Interesting we run full circle and encounter estates again ....

Will you post Black's Law and Bouvier's Law Dictionary definition of license?

I think you may be saying social contract?

munera and grants but "This table of contents does not appear in the law"

and i want a refund

Free air travel, first-class accommodations is required in (i) for me: There are authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the Trust Fund such amounts as are required to pay travel expenses, either on an actual cost or commuted basis, to parties, their representatives, and all reasonably necessary witnesses for travel within the United States (as defined in section 210(i)) to attend reconsideration interviews and proceedings before administrative law judges with respect to any determination under this title.

[shikamaru]

Will you post Black's Law and Bouvier's Law Dictionary definition of license?

Here is Bouvier's 1856.

I think you may be saying social contract?

A license is a SERVITUDE at least according to legal sources.
Contracts and servitudes are not synonymous at least according to legal sources.

munera and grants but "This table of contents does not appear in the law"

and i want a refund

Free air travel, first-class accommodations is required in (i) for me: There are authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the Trust Fund such amounts as are required to pay travel expenses, either on an actual cost or commuted basis, to parties, their representatives, and all reasonably necessary witnesses for travel within the United States (as defined in section 210(i)) to attend reconsideration interviews and proceedings before administrative law judges with respect to any determination under this title.

You will find the definitions for munera, tenancy, and tenancy at wills in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856).

[walter]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

[Seosaidh]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents,
statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact,
since it was given to you then they are your property,
those given names hold a claim to the land and assets,

the last name was never given to you,
it was assigned to you, not your property,
you must be holding it in trust then,

the BC only states name,
name of what?
property of whom?
who signed the BC?
who holds liability?

what we got going here is a Usufruct,
government does not like you using that word with them,
reveals the true story of the name and title,

I'm glad you responded to the thread. I've spent the better part of today trying to figure out exactly what goes on when the birth registry occurs. In light of what you posted, who (in your mind) is exercising usufructuary powers?

[Chex]

the first and middle name were given to you from parents, statement of live birth shows given names and is evidence to this fact, since it was given to you then they are your property, those given names hold a claim to the land and assets, what we got going here is a Usufruct, the true story of title,

Of beneficiary: Nothing more needed to be said.

"Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder (them) makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company,(SSA) which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder (beneficiary you). Who paid my premiums LOL since I was fourteen?

(c) No other property exempt
Notwithstanding any other law of the United States (including section 207 of the Social Security Act), no property or rights to property shall be exempt from levy other than the property specifically made exempt by subsection (a).

Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

furnish his/hers employer with Form W-4 (or its equivalent) for withholding.

Okay since I paid the premiums whats my return?

Lets see in the year 1973 I was 14 and retired after age 52 that means I paid premiums for 39 years of a A private insurance policy and I don?t have nothing?

[shikamaru]

I will post the definition from Black's Law Dictionary concerning license when I get time.

[David Merrill]

I am sure I have mentioned this before. I was saving this fellow's castle when the US clerk of court was insisting on falsifying his name:

I wrote to Congress and paid them $350 to hear about this falsification of fact and the clerk immediately got in line (and was soon replaced: